Heretic or Anathema?

Here is a link to an article about Carlton Pearson, a minister who has given up on the notion of Hell.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3362554&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Carlton Pearson used to proclaim Christ as Savior, and although I didn't agree with some of his theology at the time, it would appear he has entered in to the realm of "anathema"

Here is my response to the comment section of the site:

If, as Carlton Pearson asserts, there is no hell (or more accurately, no eternal punishment), then there was no need for Jesus to die, mankind would have no need for a Savior, and the bible should be declared null and void. Since the Old Testament points to the coming Messiah, and the New Testament tells the story and conditions of salvation, neither would have any merit according to Mr. Pearson. If that is the case, what is he preaching? Why would we need Reverends? Why does he have a church and why is he being paid? If all he is preaching is a glorified, feel good hedonistic message, then he should just become a motivational speaker and drop the whole religious facade.

Second, if everyone supposedly goes to heaven, does it occur to you that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and every other barbaric, murderous tyrant will be there as well? In other words, it doesn't matter how we live or what we do, just live for yourself, forget others and get all you can get no matter what it costs others. The logic of Mr. Pearson's way of thinking is atrocious and breaks down rather easily.

If there is any moral law, there must be a moral law giver. If there are no consequences for actions, why do we have prisons and a legal system? How can we put someone in prison who is such a great person that they're going to heaven? "If anyone, even an angel from heaven, comes preaching any other gospel other than what we have preached, let him be accursed (anathema)"-Paul of Tarsus

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away"-Jesus of Nazareth

"I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"-Jesus of Nazareth

Holiness is "Cool"

A church in Tucson that goes by the name, “The Cool Church” has come under fire for its Biblical stance against homosexuality this week in the local newspaper. See this link for article. http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/190018.php. The article has fueled much rhetoric from both sides of the argument. I would say that most Christians feel that the acceptance and embracing of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle is an issue being societally stuffed down the throats of those who oppose it.

While I may have methodological differences with how “The Cool Church” carries out its mission, I stand firmly with them in our agreement that the Scriptures clearly indicate that a practicing homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with the lifestyle of one committed to being a disciple of Jesus Christ. And in spite of differences in how the liturgical aspects of church services are carried out, ultimately as followers of Jesus Christ, I’m quite positive that it is our desire as well as "The Cool Church" to see those who walk in darkness come to the truth of the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

The following is a comment I sent in to the newspaper in response to a blog by the religion editor. http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/blogs/desertbeliefs/4747/

There are two central arguments that must be considered regarding this subject. What must be first considered is whether or not the Scriptures are the authoritative Word of God. Historical Christianity attributes all scripture as being divinely inspired, using men who were prompted by and devoted first to the Hebrew God for the Old Testament scripture, and to the same God through Jesus Christ for the writings of the New Testament. If God is the divine author of the Bible, then the words written in the Bible are true, and they are not ours to interpret at our own discretion. If God is not the author of the Scriptures, then we are free to interpret in whatever subjective way we see fit. In light of that, there are rules of interpretation (hermenuetics)which still allow for a normative literal interpretation of Scripture. For example, prophesy, for the most part, tends not to be literal, but rather uses pictorial language to paint general ideas and principles. Sin, however, is almost always presented directly, specifically, and, dare we say, literally. If God is the author and final authority, and what the bible says is true (in absolute terms, not as a post-modern construct of our own desire) then based upon scripture references in Gen. 19, Lev. 18:22, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal 5:19-21, Eph. 5:3-5, 1 Tim. 1:9-10, and Jude 7, same sex sexual activity is sin. If the bible is only the words of man, it is open to preferential subjective interpretation, and we are all just players in pluralistic polytheism.

Which leads to the second problem. Pluralism is based upon all different ideas having equal validity. If that is the case, then those who are opposed to homosexuality on moral or religious grounds have just as equal footing at the table as any other viewpoint. If the voices in opposition of homosexuality are to be silenced, those in favor of homosexuality are guilty of exclusivity just as much as those they are trying to silence. If you claim that any who are in biblical opposition to homosexuality are intolerant and therefore are wrong, you are also practicing intolerance against their viewpoint. You can't have it both ways. You can't point the finger of intolerance at others without becoming guilty of intolerance yourself.

Finally, in addressing an issue in the blog itself,
the writers of scripture (especially during the first century)were fully aware of what same sex relationships were, as they were writing in the midst of a Greek and Roman culture that generally accepted and embraced homosexuality as a cultural norm. So the first century writings of the church were still in opposition to same gender sexual relationships whether the words of God or the writings of men.

"Nothing wrong with it, but I'd want more for my daughter"

Recently, I read some thoughts from a woman who noted that her teenage neice hung out with a girl (Let's call her "Alice") who comes from what appears, on the outside, to be a decent family. Alice's father is a minister and her mother is a stay at home mom. The family spends time together on family outings. Alice informed this woman that her idol is a woman named Kendal from "The Girls Next Door". Apparently, "The Girls Next Door" is a television show about playboy founder Hugh Hefner and his girlfriends. Alice wants to be one of Hefner's girlfriends. Since she he is not allowed to watch the show at home she watches it at her friends' houses. The woman writing these thoughts commented, "Is there anything wrong with being a playmate? Not really. But I would hope my daughter would want to be more than a pretty face and that she would not want to be one of three girlfriends." Really? Is that what this woman really thinks?

Even though the family spends time together, Alice appears to have her eyes on removing herself from what she considers to be moral restraints. This would lead me to conclude that just because a father is a minister doesn't mean that everything is done in a proper and prioritized manner at home. Having been in vocational ministry for over a decade, I have seen far too many ministry families where the father is just as absent as any other family, and the children feel just as neglected as someone whose dad might be a doctor, an attorney or flat out not there at all. Inevitably, young women, if not getting a positive connection and affection from their dad at home, will turn to other avenues to receive attention. In this case, Alice would seem to believe that the attention and affection she would receive by exposing her body and being sexually promiscuous will fill the void created by a lack of affection from home. Sadly, she’s not alone. There are thousands of young women who would jump at the chance that Alice is desiring. Folks, we have sown to the wind, and we are reaping the whirlwind.
Now, regarding her statement that, "there isn’t anything wrong” with being a playmate, yet she hopes her daughter would be more than a pretty face or the third part of a polygamous relationship, her use of the word “more” would indicate that she believes being a pretty face and one of three girlfriends is less, or something to be looked down upon. Yet if she doesn't see anything wrong with it, why would she look down upon it and not want it for her daughter? Do you see the mess that relative morality is making in people's ability to think reasonably?
I have three daughters and I can unequivocally say that I would find it extremely wrong and flat out unacceptable for them to put themselves in such a degrading and disreputable position. Brothers and sisters in Christ, it’s perfectly okay to say that there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs, especially when it comes to our children. As a parent, I have a duty and obligation to protect my children from being exposed to things that are morally objectionable, and more importantly, to train them as they become young men and women to discern biblically what is right and wrong, regardless of what politically correct advocates say about values. Moral relativism, taken to its logical conclusion, will lead to chaos at best and anarchy at worst, but even worse than that, a plethora of individual broken hearted men and women, like the young woman "Alice" from the home of a minister.

More thoughts on Education

Here are some more thoughts on the education establishment as I work my way through school. I wonder how this will fly in a classroom full of evolutionists? (By the way, I use the term "cosmic designer" as, in the words of apologist Greg Koukl, a rock in their shoe. I am in no way trying to hide, diminish or misrepresent our Holy God and His son Jesus Christ as being our creator and Savior.)

"Epistemology is, of course, the theory of knowledge, primarily addressing the following questions: "What is knowledge?, How is knowledge acquired?, and What do people know?” (Courtesy of Wikipedia). It is very important as educators that we teach not only what and how, but why. Many people don’t even know why they exist, or what purpose they serve. This has manifested itself in the fact that suicide among teenagers has nearly tripled since the 1950’s. This is why I keep banging the drum of morality and its importance in the education system, and why as a basketball coach, I use every opportunity I can to teach values such as character, honor, integrity, perseverance, self discipline and so on.
Someone once wisely said, “Why should we be surprised when kids act like animals in 6th hour English when we just told them that’s where they came from in 5th hour science?” One of the primary aspects of learning should be an understanding of the why’s, beginning with “why am I here?” In our effort to reassign origins away from a cosmic designer and toward randomness, we have removed ultimate purpose from existence, other than pursuit of temporal pleasure or personal fulfillment. Some might go so far as to make “for the good of humankind” proclamations, but to remove purpose beyond the empirical and provable has caused serious harm to every aspect of society, especially academically.
Reverend S.M. Davis described knowledge as learning what to do, wisdom is learning how to do it, and understanding is learning why to do it. So, ultimately as educators, we should be teaching knowledge, wisdom, and most important, understanding. The “why’s” will usually provide the stimulation and motivation for learning the “what’s” and “how’s”.

Are there any true atheists out there?

Having grown up with an agnostic father and a charismatic Christian mother, I floundered in a rather confused state for some time. In retrospect, although I disagree, I find the agnostic position more honest than the atheist position. The agnostic believes "there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists" (American Heritage Dictionary).
The end result of your faith, be it in God, or in humanism, is ultimately the fruit of your presuppositions. Is there a first cause? If so, what is it? If there is a creator, and He has instituted some form of absolute epistemological faith and moral system, then which one is the truth? Not necessarily which one do I believe, but which is evidentially supported (beyond "reasonable" doubt) with the most historical, archeological, geographical and intellectual evidence. Even having grown up with all the science books, the humanistic anthropological and sociological arguments, and the "proof" of evolution, I have always had difficulty with one glaring concept, which I've heard many an atheist use as a starting place: "Out of the nothingness came..." That illogical starting place preempts an atheist worldview for me. The world needs to have logic, order, and authority structure to function, and all of it needs to have a starting place. In my journey, I have found Biblical Christianity (although not the charismatic variety chosen by my mother)to be the most consistent and logical belief system. Of course, the common response to that is, "Where did your God come from?" A theist doesn't have to supply evidence because in his or her worldview, there is room for the supernatural, and in this case, an eternal pre-existence. An atheist, however, being a materialist, still has to give reason to, "Out of the nothingness came..."
Each pre-suppositional worldview requires an embrace and a rejection. The atheist must embrace humanistic and evolutionary materialism and reject notions of supernaturalism, while the theist embraces an ultimate creator and His system and rejects the idea of man as just the newest permutation of the evolutionary cycle.
Regardless, the particular worldview one has is the result of a choice which one stands by. Atheists are free to choose and Christians are free to choose. Ideally, we can amicably discuss and debate and at the end of the day shake hands and agree to disagree on matters of existence and eternity.

Old Dead People

I kind of like studying "old dead people". While times do change and cultural relevance is important, I believe we can do a great disservice to law, politics, education and especially theology if we arbitrarily dismiss something simply because it is old. One of the reasons I enjoy history is because of the incredible wisdom that "old dead people" had. One of my favorite trips is to Washington D.C. to read the inscriptions on the walls of the monuments. The words and writings of men like Jefferson, Lincoln and others is not only inspirational, but well thought-out and reasoned. One of the things I noticed the last time I visited was that over the last century or so, the contributory quotes of these historical men became more and more simple. On the Lincoln memorial and Jefferson memorial are these incredible and sometimes lengthy dissertations that are rich in wisdom and thought. The newer monuments, specifically the one erected to honor Franklin Roosevelt, was full of slogans. FDR would have made an excellent refrigerator salesman with his sloganeering.
I believe the subjugation to constructivism and relativism will be ultimately harmful to individuals and the nation as a whole. While it might affirm and appease personal subjective preferences, there are serious conflicts with a world that has objective truth as its foundation (i.e., the complexity or human organisms, the foundation of legal systems and arguments, and elements of science including aspects such as gravity, time, matter, etc.). The logical conclusion of a society ruled by relativism is chaos and anarchy.
The body of Christ needs to reject worldviews based upon relativism. Truth isn't relative, the Word of God isn't gray, and God cares about the details, not only of what we believe, but how we live out the sactification process.

Medicine or Ice Cream?

Another classroom discussion, this time on the effects of either the removal of religion and it's effects or on teaching about all religions. The person pondering this question posts legitimate comments and genuine questions (as opposed to just subjective outbursts), as the focus of his research paper is on how a society sets up it's moral standards. His question is from an earlier post I made about the fact that to remove all mention of God is support for the religion of humanism.

His question: Will humanism be the effect of multiple religious teachings in the classroom? For example, will a Christian that learns about Buddhism, become a Buddhist? Probably not, but they might find some relevant similarities that make them expand their beliefs.

My response:
Good questions that you ponder. And I agree that it probably wouldn't be a bad thing for people to study other religions in the classroom setting, for the sake of understanding and relating to other people in a more amicable and compassionate manner.
I believe humanism (and by that, meaning the belief that man is the "supreme", or most advanced being there is, the natural result of evolutionary advancement-for those who ascribe to that belief system) would be the result if we tried to eliminate the acknowledgment of God, defined as being a divine creator. To arbitrarily dismiss references to creation, religious systems and faith is an investment in the doctrine of secularism. If that is the case, great difficulties arise in trying to build and maintain any sense of moral expectations other than pragmatism (what is beneficial to me) or a loose reference to “what’s good for society”. But with no absolute standard, how do you create a definition of what’s good? To Lenin and Stalin it was “good” for Communist controlled Russia to kill millions (if not tens of millions) of people in their attempts to eliminate God from culture.
The elimination of God generally leads to anarchy, or at least apathy and nihilism (Look at Europe in it’s present state). That would tend to eliminate it as a viable contributing worldview. After all, what good is a society where nobody cares about anything except themselves, if they even care at all? This conclusion would theoretically lead a society down a pathway to a search for truth (absolute) and meaning.
What we must then look at is not , “Which religion makes me feel good?”, but rather, “Which religion is true, and therefore offering me a hope and purpose while I live and the assurance of existence continuation for the better after I die”. See, truth is like medicine. Preference is like ice cream. If my life hangs in the balance, I don’t really want ice cream, I want medicine. That begs the question: Are matters of faith and religion medicine or ice cream? Is religion a preference, or is it the cure? And if so, which medicine? I don’t take allergy medicine if I’m dying of cancer. I must have the right medicine.
If we find the most viable and evidentially supported belief system for eternal purposes, we’ll probably find our best option for setting up moral boundaries in our temporal state.